Tag Archives: electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The ancient Mayans smoked tobacco. The first European settlers smoked tobacco and the ancestors of these first European settlers continued the practice into the settling of what was to become the United States. But none of the people of those time periods smoked it on a daily basis or in quantities sufficient enough to be either aware of its dangers or to actually be dangerous. Fast forward to the late 1800s where the ability to mass produce tobacco took place. Now it became big. Then by the mid 20th century it became really big business to the tune of more than 100 billion cigarettes being produced annually. By now the world population was “hooked”. But something else was happening at the same time. An increase in the incidents of lung cancers directly related to smoking was discovered by British researchers in the 1940s. This resulted in the push for public awareness from which a battle would ensue that would take on almost epic proportions as in the classic battle of David and Goliath. The Tobacco Industry was going to make every effort to prevent that from happening, so they thought. A better educated public would be better able to eliminate or at least reduce this very real health danger. The result of this information at best would put them out of business and at least might diminish their profits. Either way the Tobacco Industry was not going to have any of this. We the people were David, supposedly with no lobby, no money, little knowledge, no power became the thorn in the foot of the Goliath and we made it stumble. But it took time. This Goliath had millions, lobbyist, inside knowledge and tremendous political power. But, through dissemination of pertinent information, perseverance, becoming more informed, legislation began to be enacted to do just that. Legislation with HEALTH WARNINGS began being put on cigarette packages. First it was, “Cigarettes maybe harmful to your health” to “Cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, emphysema and may complicate pregnancy.

There was success but it took time. A lot of time. The public was very slow to respond. There were a number of things that contributed to that. The obvious was that people supposedly enjoyed smoking or they thought they needed to. It was “cool”. The public did not really know that they were addicted. (Though addiction was a known component, it was vigorously denied by the tobacco industry.) The influence of the media and their campaigns through advertisements, TV and movies had tremendous impact. Add to this that there were no immediate detrimental affects to individuals. (One could see the affects that breathing smoke did to our lungs on a more immediate basis either by looking what it did to a white handkerchief or at x-rays of a smoker’s lungs. ) Because the affects of tobacco smoking or inhaling as in second hand smoke is cumulative, the devastating affects of cancer, heart disease and emphysema usually only rear their ugly heads much later in a person’s life. It took many years for the public to positively respond with actions that would benefit the individual and the masses from a health standpoint. Keeping these points in mind let’s move into the latter quarter of the 20th century and into the beginning of 21st century.

I opened up this blog with this encapsulated history of the tobacco industry because by now it is a familiar one for many people. A similar story is unfolding today on multiple fronts. I am concentrating on the cell phone industry though and that of radio frequencies (EMF) as they pertain to cell phone usage and the potential harm they maybe doing to us all but, especially our CHILDREN. There are a lot of parallels taking place right this moment in this industry much like that which occurred within the tobacco industry. (No, as far as I know the Mayans were not using cell phones.) This may not be a familiar story to you yet, but it will be soon.

The wireless phone idea goes as far back as 1918 or slightly before that period. Its actual implementation came around the 1940s and 1950s but they were known as MOBILE phones. They were huge and cumbersome by today’s standards. These early products were hindered by their high cost and the technology of the day. To give you a better picture of what that might have been like, take 5000 to 40,000 people waiting to get on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles, 2013. ( actually we could even use the Pasadena Freeway of the 1940s and 50s) Now let’s say that those 5000 to 40,000 people could only get on or off either freeway at a very few selected on-ramps at a rate of approximately 3 every 30 minutes. Then those waiting had to wait until another group of 3 got off before they could get on. This is over simplified but I think that you get the idea.

The number of people using these mobile devices was minuscule until the last quarter of the 20th century. Until the latter part of that century they used them sporadically. People then DID NOT keep them to their ears for any real length of time nor CARRY them around on their persons in bras and in pockets. It was not until 1973 that the first true cell phone was developed by Martin Cooper. That device was still too big and expensive to be used by the general public though the bottle neck of 3 calls every 30 minutes had been eclipsed by a wide margin by 1973 there was still a ways to go to truly have high transmission traffic. That would change though at an unprecedented accelerated rate. The cell phone shrunk, the technology vastly improved, the transmission of data became much more efficient, and the phones became more affordable. 1% of the US population used cell phones in 1985. 10 years later that number jumped to a little more than 10%. 2005, another 10 years 75% of the US population had a cell phone! Explosive growth? You bet you. The next 5 years, 2010 100% plus U.S. saturation. (1) By 2012 there are virtually as many cell phones as their are people on the planet. (2) Heck, there maybe more cell phones than toilets.

So, what is the crux of this blog, are you putting your children at risk? Glad you asked.

Just as with smoking, it took a large enough population of smokers with a subset of affected smokers experiencing serious health issues to begin questioning if there was some correlation between the product and the effects of the product. And as was suggested earlier, the fact that such health issues did not occur immediately nor at any significant levels and were cumulative over time, resulted in slow responses. Besides the tobacco industry had the world already hooked making it more difficult for many to make a drastic or dramatic change. For us humans to make an immediate change the problem has to be one of imminent danger. And the effects of smoking were, well in the future and not everyone would be affected.

This same scenario in 2013 applies to the cell phone industry with its cell phone/smart phones. The whole world is now “hooked” on being in touch with each other through the use of these devices. Though admittedly there are definite benefits to having instant communication, Other than ESP (which is such a some time proposition so far) we all now have the ability to stay in touch with virtually any person on the planet, 24/7! And as it turns out there is another push for public awareness as to the possible health concerns for all of us. (Health notices are beginning to show up on cell phone lately) The battle is just beginning. It centers around the highly probable effects of EMF (Electro Magnetic Fields) upon our cells and DNA. There is research popping up globally that there is a higher risk of developing various types of cancers conditional upon how long we use these devices, the signal strength of these devices (or lack thereof), and the places where we either store them and use them on our persons. Many of you already know where you put your phone, women your bras, men and women your pockets. We put the phones to our ears to talk over extensive periods of time. In each of these cases two things are working against us, the length of time on our persons and the strength of or lack of strength of RF (radio frequency signals). There is even speculation that there maybe a correlation between children’s behavioral issues deriving from prolonged exposure of the fetus while in the womb. Other studies are pointing to possible increased neurological problems such as headaches, dizziness and more. Is it conclusive? Not yet. But, these issues were not even on the radar 40 years ago. Just as the effects of smoking was not initially either.

For now, the emphasis here are the topics relating to CHILDREN because they are at the greatest risk. Reports and studies surfacing globally are attempting to give the public pertinent information in this regard that RF frequencies penetrate farther into a child’s brain because of physiological reasons which the diagram below shows.

(A) Children absorb more energy than adults from the same phone.
(B) Tumors in mid-brain are more deadly than those in the temporal lobe.
(C) Children’s cells are producing more quickly than adults.
(D) Children’s immune system is not as well developed as adults.
(E) Longer potential for life time exposure for children than adults.

Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties. Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age — and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven. (4)

What you have seen above or are about to read below should not be taken lightly as if it were Ripley’s Believe It Or Not.

‘… it is more prudent to take seriously the reports by multiple investigators that radiofrequency can damage DNA and increase the risk for brain tumors, and for industry-independent agencies to provide needed funding for detailed research to ascertain the molecular basis for such effects.” Dr. Ronald B. Herberman suggests this as “the precautionary principle”.

“Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cell phones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia.”

• Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society.
__________________________________

“The scientific data show, with a high degree of confidence, that mobile phone exposure is associated with an increased brain tumor risk.

“The age group below 20 years is facing the greatest risk, which for malignant (deadly) brain tumors is about 400 percent, compared to non-exposed.”
‘….some of the industry’s own research found that cell phones caused brain tumors, and subsequent industry-funded studies from 2000 to 2002 also showed an elevated risk of brain cancer.”

“One such study reportedly found a 20 percent increased risk of brain tumor for every year of cell phone use!”

In 2005, the British-based National Radiological Protection Board suggested children younger than age 8 should not be given a cell phone as it risks exposing their young bodies to harmful radiation.
Last year Toronto’s department of public health followed suit, warning that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under 8 should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes. (3)

Few people realize this, but brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children, and many scientists believe this is directly linked to the exponential increase in cell phone use and other wireless devices.(3)

Australia has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade. This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years. (3)
__________________________________

Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable

Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there’s virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA. (4)

Dr. Devra Davis, author of “Disconnect – The Truth About Cellphone Radiation,” has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone. Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn’t believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous―until she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she’s trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.(4)
__________________________________

‘…. Your cell phone is not necessarily a safe device,’

“The other thing to be aware of is that we haven’t had any good studies in the pediatric population. A child’s skull is much thinner. The scalp is much thinner. And the amount of radiation that goes into the pediatric brain is much higher than in the adult. So, we should be cautious with how we allow our children to use a cell phone. They’re going to be the ones not only using it at a much younger age, but using it over a much longer duration. (5)

‘But what’s important to recognize is that, if you do develop BRAIN CANCER, it’s one of the most DEVASTING illnesses that you can have. So, if you WANT to take PRECAUTIONS, at least you’re aware that your cell phone is not NECCESARILY a SAFE DEVICE, ’

Changing not only the way you think but the actions you take. Here’s to your health.
Chipsterhealth, Aug. 08, 2013

EMAIL ME WITH YOUR QUESTIONS AT: Chipsterhealth@gmail.com

______________________________________________________

Cieaura products do not diagnose, cure, mitigate treatment or prevent disease or any other medical condition.

Content published here is not read or approved by CieAura before it is posted and does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of CieAura.
_________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES:

“LET THEM EAT CAKE”. (Qu’ils mangent de la brioche)
(incorrectly attributed to Marie Attoinette and not quite the correct translation)*

Though the above quote has been incorrectly attributed to Marie Attoinette as well as the translation not being spot on, this quote was used back in the 1700s to convey how the rich and powerful were perceived to think of the common man of that day. It is believed this was one of the catalyst that led to the French Revolution of July 14, 1789.

History has shown us that kingdoms, religious entities, and governments kept their flocks in ignorance for what these entities believed were for the good of us. They believed that the masses preferred to be led. They must have been right to a large extent. We know this because for eons only the elite of society had access to knowledge from reading and writing and with it they controlled us. In actuality it was for the benefit of those in power and authority. In actuality, we allowed them to lead us at first because of ignorance and then because we were conditioned to be led. Old habits are hard to quit let alone change on either side of the coin.

Today, these same attitudes exist but knowledge is much more readily available and more difficult to prevent access. But, our conditioning is still intact from centuries of conditioning. The following statement probably summarizes this point — ‘Because the government (king, religious authority) says it is, it must be true. They would not allow product or services to be offered if it would harm us’. Think again!

Let me give one poignant example. The process of getting acknowledgement of LEAD’S TOXICITY and stopping the use of IT in paints and products in the United States was arduous and lengthy. Lead is toxic to all of us, but again more so for our children at the developing stage of life. Lead acts like a mineral to our bodies, so when it enters our bloodstreams it is distributed throughout our entire bodies lessening the ability of our blood cells to carry oxygen because the cells are damaged. And if it gets into our bones, which it eventually will contingent upon toxicity levels, then it will even hamper the production of blood cells. What are some of the effects? Speech problems, nervous system damage, seizures, slower development, kidney problems and more. Yet for decades parents were being blamed by individuals and the paint industry at large for the problems that were surfacing with their children after extended exposure to lead based products. Beginning around the early part of the 20th century paints contained up to 70% lead. Children were dying from it, having convulsions for “unknown reasons”. As far back as the 1920s the industry knew that lead was harmful and lethal however that same industry ferociously fought its regulation and it removal from products. In the 1970s, some 50 plus years later even a major TV station was being threatened with lawsuits for airing this issue on their popular shows before meaningful action took place in 1978.

Here is the point of this particular blog. Where excessive money, profit and power are concerned this idea of “ First, Do No Harm”, tends to break down. I just gave an example of lead in paint. But there are others products such as lead in gasoline, emissions from cars, DDT, the cancer causing aspect of smoking, dumping contaminants into our water networks, asbestos, GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) and, you guessed it now cell phone radiation, where the “INDUSTRY” lobby is so strong and so intent that [it appears that] profit and power trumps the overall well being of our human family.

So, what does “LET THEM EAT CAKE” and the emissions of EMF have to do with what I have just talked about?

Two things. Is there legitimate reason to think that the industry is oblivious to the public’s concerns or could it care less about the effects EMF [ may have upon] has upon us, even if it may at present [seem to] only affect a few. Or I am using this term wrongly to demonize an otherwise innocuous product or industry?

The second thing is, have any of you reading this looked into the possible effects of Cell Phone Radiation upon us all or more so upon our children? Is it legitimate to think that the Cell Phone Industry is doing what most big industry does – that is hide the genuine health issues from the masses? Are our concerns valid in this regard? Or are those of us concerned or affected by EMF just conjuring up a problem where none exists? I think past history gives one cause to be at least a little cynical. Tending to err on the side of caution in this regard should be the order of the day, don’t you think?**

Here’s to your health and changing not only the way you think but the actions you take.
Chipsterhealth, April 24, 2013

Cieaura products do not diagnose, cure, mitigate treatment or prevent disease or any other medical condition.

Content published here is not read or approved by CieAura before it is posted and does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of CieAura.

* Wikipedia.
There is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said that starving peasants should “eat cake” if they had no bread. In fact, the story of a fatuous noblewoman who said “Let them eat cake!” appears in the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, which was written around 1766 (when Marie Antoinette was just 11 years old).
What Marie Antoinette was actually like was beside the point; the image of the queen was far more influential than the woman herself.

NOTE:
Using the speaker phone reduces radiation to the head as do headsets which emit significantly less radiation than cell phones. Text instead of talk; it takes less power to send a text message than to send a voice message (talk) which means less radiation. Also, texting keeps radiation away from your head. Fewer signal bars on your phone means that it omits more radiation trying to get the signal to the tower. Take or make calls when your phone has a strong signal. If you have a poor signal, stay off the phone or keep it away from your head, out of your bras, and away from your pockets.